Your Doctor's Rights Vs. Your Rights

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I found lots of interesting information on health.usnews.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. health.usnews.com keep it that way.

Payday Loans of AL 1:33AM May 01, 2009

I found lots of interesting information on health.usnews.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. health.usnews.com keep it that way.

Payday Loans of AL 1:32AM May 01, 2009

I am against abortion but still voted for President Obama. Woman can choose this procedure and the government of the USA gives them that right.
Doctors should have that same right...to choose to use the "do no harm" part of the oath to "do no harm" to a growing fetus or to provide birth control or fertility drugs.
I sincerely hope doctors will be allowed to exercise their rights just as we afford women the right to choose. Insurance will support those who provide. Women should choose their doctor accordingly!

P. Travis of NE 1:41PM April 26, 2009

I am against abortion but still voted for President Obama. Woman can choose this procedure and the government of the USA gives them that right.
Doctors should have that same right...to choose NOT to use the "do no harm" part of the oath to "do no harm" to a growing fetus or to provide birth control or fertility drugs.
I sincerely hope doctors will be allowed to exercise their rights just as we afford women the right to choose. Insurance will support those who provide. Women should choose their doctor accordingly!

P. Travis of NE 1:39PM April 26, 2009

I understand that doctors have no obligation to treat people but the government cfould help by creating less jails and more hospitals to where people can work. Then focus on the rights for both pashents and doctors. The two should talk and maybe make an agreemant stating that what they talk about will be between those two unless it endangers the liofe of another.
thank you

Jean of NV 10:41AM April 07, 2009

I agree that it would be horrible to be forced by your boss to do something you are morally opposed to. If that was ever the case, I would refuse to do so, even if it meant being fired from my job.
That being said, for all the people saying that its the practitioner's right to deny services, why don't you consider that it was their career CHOICE. And by choice, I mean that your doctor picked medicine out of all the carer opportunities. When you choose to do something, you need to weigh the benefits and consequences of your action. This applies to everything from stealing to going to picking a career.
Doctors needs to go to school for many years before they are allowed to practice. I'm sure that regardless of how religious these people are, they have some basic intelligence, and if they were blessed with this intelligence, they would realize what the job entails. And anyone with modest intelligence would realize that their beliefs conflicts with their job. I feel more sorry for the poor janitors who are against abortion and need to clean rooms dedicated to it than the doctors who spend lots of money and dedicate years of their life to becoming a doctor. At least the janitor can have the excuse that they didn't know what was involved, and they probably didn't spend years hoping to one day become a janitor.
It wouldn't bother me much if they were forced to be upfront about their beliefs and practices. Or if they were forced to work with the patient to find a reasonable alternative. For example, I wouldn't be angry if your doctor just said "Sorry, but I don't do this. This person who is also covered by your insurance, costs around the same amount, and is nearby does, heres the number." Or if your pharmacist said "Sorry, I don't give out birth control, let me get someone who does." Unless this happens, its just a sad excuse for discrimination.
If you had a racist doctor who didn't like blacks, they could just say that they refused to treat the person because of some insane excuse and be completely forgiven. You could also have a doctor on salary who can't be fired even though they rarely see patients, because its not their fault that all their patients are immoral. This issue hurts everyone but the doctors. If the doctors don't want to be hurt, they shouldn't be doctors.
I believe everyone has the right to choose. If you want an abortion, get one. If you want to live by your religious beliefs, find a way to make that possible. And find a way to make that possible without causing harm to others.
As a side note, I wanted to be a vet. I didn't because I would never put an animal down. I realize my views on the subject, and realize that my job might conflict with it. I don't care if I can refuse to put pets down by law, I would NEVER think of refusing to do such a thing to a family who is suffering from a sick pet. I, unlike these doctors, care about the people I pretend to help.

of IL 12:32AM January 05, 2009

When implying that your rights are infringed by another person's right to not do something that they see as morally wrong you are wrong! They are not denying anyone's rights, merely defending their own rights.
This is often a matter of life and death of a human being for those that feel they have a moral obligation to not kill. Health providers have as much right to refuse to perform procedures that end a pregnancy and therefore end a life according to their beliefs as they have to refuse to participate in lethal punishment of a convicted criminal.
Thank you for your comments, Dr. Fisher.

of SC 11:26PM November 09, 2008

By saying that doctor's have no rights is to "interfere with the personal values of others" as one person stated. Who's "rights" have higher priority.
I have also heard people banter about the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take, saying that it is their duty to do whatever a patient asks. Perhaps these people should read that oath more carefully, for it explicitly says that they will "... not give to a woman an abortive remedy."
Abortion is elective surgery in most case and no doctor is bound to perform elective surgery. They are obligated however to refer the patient elsewhere.

of KS 11:19PM September 24, 2008

But this isn't just about abortion or the decision to have and/or perform one. This is about allowing healthcare professionals to refuse to treat patients of both sexes based on their moral code, which denies patients access to adequate care.
For example, I am infected with an STD. I happen to like both of my doctors and find that they treat me professionally and fairly. However, before I met both, I was being treated by a doctor who was very disrespectful towards me based on my initial diagnosis of this STD. She couldn't refuse to treat me because she was obliged to (hypocratic oath), but she certainly made it known that she wasn't going to provide me with the type of care my current doctors would. She gave me some medicine and sent me home, without answering my questions or providing me any information necessary to suppress and limit symptoms of my disease. In other words, this doctor was discrimitory, but still treated me because she HAD to.
If this regulation is passed, a doctor such as her could have the power to say, "No, I won't treat you because it goes against my morals...I will not treat patients who have premarital sexual relations". She has no obligation to treat me or recommend a doctor who WILL treat my condition. She is "off the hook" while the patient must bear the consequences.
Now, lots of people say, "But you can just go see another doctor who WILL treat you." This is only true in the case where the patient has access and the means to see another doctor (medical coverage which allows mutliple doctors, transportation to out-of-area facility, additional co-pay, etc). Because doctors and other healthcare workers are not required to be upfront about what they will or will not morally support, it leaves a large area of "guessing" room for patients to try and seek medical attention.
People need to stop looking at this as a "abortion issue" or "reproductive issue" and start realizing the ramifications it could have on ALL healthcare in the US.

kp of CA 1:14PM September 24, 2008

I have to support the docs. I remember a statement from a woman in a philosophy class, "keep your laws off my body" as she argued passionately that society should not invade the liberty of her body and her personal ethics. I argue that this cuts both ways. Society has no right to invade the personal ethics of docs and other either and force them to accomplish what they believe is wrong by rule of law. Seems to me, if so many people really believe abortion and other such actions are good for our society, that there will be docs out there to perform them. If giving docs the right to say no to abortion threatens the availability of abortion, then perhaps those demanding such services should ask themselves is the collective wisdom of society is turning against the terrible cost of such things. If I were a doctor, to take a life would be a horrendous decision. If I had to to save the life of the mother it would be a decision I could live with but that would haunt me. But to save the convenience of the mother... that is another matter. It is so strange to me how people respond. When someone drowns puppies that are unwanted they are thoughtless and cruel. But when someone enters the womb and removes the baby that grows there - it is some sterile medical procedure. It is a baby when I want it. A fetus, tissue, when I don't. There is only one common strand here. Selfish hubris.

David Reedy of VA 8:07AM September 24, 2008